Fancy Footwork :rolleyes:

[Jenny_Jackson]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17509696/

Remember when GW made the announcement that he was sending a "surge" of troops to Iraq. It was 21,500 additional soldiers, right? Not so, it seems.

More military police headed to Baghdad
Pentagon approves request by new U.S. commander

Updated: 3:47 a.m. PT March 8, 2007
WASHINGTON - The Pentagon has approved a request by the new U.S. commander in Iraq for an extra 2,200 military police to help deal with an anticipated increase in detainees during the Baghdad security crackdown, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday.

Gates also cited early indications that the Iraqi government is meeting the commitments it made to bolster security, although he cautioned that it was too early to reach any firm conclusions about the outcome.

“We’re right at the very beginning,” he told a Pentagon news conference. “But I would say that based in terms of whether the Iraqis are meeting the commitments that they’ve made to us in the security arena, I think that our view would be so far, so good.” He was referring to the movement of additional Iraqi troops into the capital.

Gates said that the request for extra MPs is in addition to the 21,500 combat troops that President Bush is sending for the Baghdad security plan and 2,400 other troops designated to support them.

Gordon England, the deputy defense secretary, told Congress earlier this week that the number of required support troops could reach 7,000.

“That’s a new requirement by a new commander,” Gates said of the request for more MPs by Gen. David Petraeus, who assumed command in Baghdad last month. He added that there were other troop requests still being considered in the Pentagon; he gave no specifics.

Gates said it was not a surprise that Sunni insurgents have launched increased attacks in recent days.

“I think that we expected that there would be in the short term an increase in violence as the surge began to make itself felt,” Gates said, adding that there were other “very preliminary positive signs” that the Baghdad security plan is working.

Joining Gates at the news conference, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that in recent days the number of sectarian murders was down slightly and the number of car bombings was up.

“So I think you see potentially the Iraqi people wanting to take advantage of this opportunity and the enemy wanting to keep it going,” Pace said.

So how are these additional troops justified? Just before the "surge" was announced, Bush ordered 7000 troops sent. They were arriving in Iraq at the time of the announcement as the first contingent of the 21,500. Appearantly those troops don't count now, because now they are sending another 7000 (?) Am I reading this wrong or is the 21,500 man "surge" really closer to 30,000?

And what about the "Iraq Study Group" report. If, of course, was completely wrong. Never mind what the overall commander on the ground is saying this morning ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17515918/ ).

 

[Kev H]

IMO, the tone of this post is most off-color. Read the last linked news story without your political filters, and you will see nothing but heart-rending chaos amidst those who are trying so desperately to go on with their (religious) life.

"It is an enormous task to protect all of them and there is a point at which if someone is willing to blow up himself ... the problem becomes very, very difficult indeed," he [Petraeus] said.

So, what honestly decent person gives a fuck if the number of extra troops is 21k or 30k? We are all working on a solution to stop the violence, regardless of your views on the causes.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

IMO, the tone of this post is most off-color. Read the last linked news story without your political filters, and you will see nothing but heart-rending chaos amidst those who are trying so desperately to go on with their (religious) life.

"It is an enormous task to protect all of them and there is a point at which if someone is willing to blow up himself ... the problem becomes very, very difficult indeed," he [Petraeus] said.

So, what honestly decent person gives a fuck if the number of extra troops is 21k or 30k? We are all working on a solution to stop the violence, regardless of your views on the causes.

Kev, I'm not asking for a reduction of troops. If the Pentagon said it needed 100,000 more to win that mess, that's fine. Send them. What I'm looking for is honesty and I'm finding that difficult to locate.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

Kev, I'm not asking for a reduction of troops. If the Pentagon said it needed 100,000 more to win that mess, that's fine. Send them. What I'm looking for is honesty and I'm finding that difficult to locate.

Left or right, Reps or Dems, honesty is now the last thing you can find with the politicos.

To be absolutely fair, I don't entirely blame them. We have pumped up the baying pack of hyenas - called the media - to go rip the vital organs out of anyone who stands for office. Is it any wonder they run for cover inside the beltway - I would.

The war is simple. Getting rid of Hussein - good. WMD - the whole world called that wrong, including Putin, the UN and the cheese botherers. Post-war - disaster, no-one had a plan, Iran is dabbling, the neo-cans mistook shi-ite-sunni friction for patriotism under duress, the Iraqi government is a mess and, we are hurling buckets of brown stuff around instead of sorting the problem.

Agreed, send as many troops as the situation demands, but don't link earlier mistakes with the desire to stop the killing.